Uncategorized

Can the problems of the developing world be solved by ignoring global warming?

Salon has published my article on the biggest flaw in the strategy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I'm going to expand on that article in a two-parter here.

The timing could not be better with the Tom Friedman "Ponzi scheme" discussion. For while the the richest foundation in the world certainly has taken on the noblest and greatest of challenges -- to help billions of people who "never even have the chance to live a healthy, productive life" (see here) reach that opportunity themselves -- its efforts are ultimately doomed to fail if we don't stop catastrophic warming.

Also, the two men who have donated much of their vast wealth to make it possible, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are Exhibits One and Two of the "very serious people who are perceived as essentially nonpartisan opinion leaders" who must speak out on climate change if we are to avert the worst (see here).

Yet when we saw them together last summer, they were touring the Ponzi Canadian tar sands, as The Calgary Herald reported (see here):

A source said Gates and Buffett, who in recent months said he favors investing in the Canadian oil sands because it offers a secure supply of oil for the United States, visited the booming hub to satisfy "their own curiosity" but also "with investment in mind."

The tar sands are an environmental abomination that require huge amounts of natural gas to produce fuel with far higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than oil. They have rightly been called by Greenpeace the "biggest global warming crime ever seen." The Catholic bishop whose diocese extends over the tar sands posted a scathing pastoral letter in January that challenges the "moral legitimacy" of tar sands production.

Let's look at the Gates Foundation's strategy, and why, despite the noblest of intentions, it is not sustainable (even though, if you search "sustainable" on the Foundation website, you get 96 hits). In the face of the daunting task of helping the world's poor, which has proven such an intractable challenge for national governments and international aid agencies, Bill Gates retains the techno-optimism that drove his unbridled success at Microsoft. In July 2008, Gates went from being full-time at Microsoft to working full-time at the foundation with his wife, Melinda. With about $30 billion in assets as of January, the Gates are targeting U.S. education, childhood deaths, malaria, polio, AIDS and agriculture in poor countries.

On their Web site, Bill and Melinda state that if "scientific and technological advances" are focused on the problems of developing nations, "then within this century billions of people will grow up healthier, get a better education, and gain the power to lift themselves out of poverty." Bill and Melinda go on to make Pollyanna, Pangloss and Paula Abdul seem like realists:

Graphic novel adaptation amps up energy message

I hardly dare to write this post, to even edge my pinky toe toward the waters of Watchmen analysis, but I will say this: as a newcomer to the story, I was intrigued by the emphasis on energy. At one point, a major character blasts a bunch of smarmy oil execs, telling them humanity "deserves better than what you've given them." (I committed the entire line to memory at the time, but the movie was so damn long good that I forgot it.)

I brought this up in our news meeting today, only to be met with the response of two staffers far more Watchmen-ucated than I, who pointed out that the energy chatter in the movie does not stem from the original book. That makes sense, considering the, er, altered denouement. Which is interesting itself, since the film was otherwise slavishly loyal to the book.

Alternative energy in The Watchmen: a nod to the current national dialogue, or a convenient replacement for a giant squid? I shall leave it to others to discuss the finer points.

Wind turbines at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base — thanks to the DOE office I once ran

My recent blog post -- Jack Bauer becomes first-ever carbon-neutral torturer as Murdoch says "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats" -- led one reader to email me that Gitmo has wind turbines. I googled, and indeed they do.

What is doubly interesting is that this project is the direct result of the Federal Energy Management Program, part of DOE's office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that I helped run in the mid-1990s. Since the Gingrich Congress blocked all efforts to ramp up funding for this "no brainer" program that helps reduce the deficit -- by lowering the energy bill of federal agencies -- while saving energy and reducing pollution, we launched a huge effort to leverage private money to pay for the retrofits.

That effort had a classic bureaucratic name -- Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity Super Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) -- you can read about here. The ESPCs avoid the need for any upfront capital by the federal government. Even though Bush has grossly underfunded all such EERE deployment programs, the program continued and Gitmo made use of it (see here [PDF]):

The Department of the Navy partnered with NORESCO to construct a $12 million wind turbine project at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using an energy savings performance contract. Four wind turbines will generate 3,800 kilowatts of electricity -- enough to supply about a quarter of the peak power needed for base operations. The project will not only save taxpayers $1.2 million in annual energy costs, but will also save 650,000 gallons of diesel fuel and reduce air pollution by 26 tons of SO2 and 15 tons of NOX, demonstrating the Navy's commitment to energy conservation and environmental stewardship.

So, no, Gitmo is not carbon neutral.

The Pentagon's news story on this back in 2005 explains how the ESPC made this possible:

With water supplies at risk, hydrologists are in high demand

From a NYT weekly jobs column, we learn of one employment area experiencing high growth:

[D]emand for hydrologists has been predicted to grow 24 percent from 2006 to 2016, much faster than the average for all occupations, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hydrologists study the distribution, circulation and physical properties of water, with hydrogeologists focusing specifically on groundwater.

After creation of the Environmental Protection Agency..., hydrologists' work was largely focused on water quality. Today, however, "an increasing percentage of hydrologists are interested in water quantity and supply, which is an emerging issue and where global climate change plays a big role," said Dork Sahagian, professor of earth and environmental science at Lehigh University and director of its Environmental Initiative in Bethlehem, Pa.

"But concern with water quality -- which involves local, site-based issues -- still drives the job market," he said. "Most hydrologists in this part of the world are still hired to cope with the availability of clean water for drinking and municipal supplies."

With industrial chemicals like BPA contaminating our drinking water supplies which are then being squeezed both by agricultural needs and by climate change-induced droughts, the future hydrologists of the world will never lack for stuff to do.

Preparing for new site, Grist temporarily suspending comments

Begging your pardon, but we've turned comments off on Grist in advance of our upcoming site relaunch.

Keep an eye out for the new Grist.org, which will include a customizable comments section (among other snazzy features).

And if you're just burning to speak up before then, drop us a line: grist AT grist DOT org.

Everything about this idea is recycled … even the idea

A boat made of plastic bottles! Now that's cool. Why hasn't it been done before?

A chat with climate skeptics whose documentary calls Gore ‘not evil, just wrong’

Phelim McAleer (left) and Ann McElhinney (right). At last week’s tiny “Celebrate Coal!” rally at the Capitol Power Plant — held in the shadow of the big anti-coal rally — […]

UK activist tosses green custard on Biz Secretary over aviation fight

Peter Mandelson is the (unelected) U.K. Business Secretary who's been instrumental in pushing through a third runway at Heathrow Airport, despite enormous public resistance. When democratic means failed, U.K. activists decided to throw green custard on him.

TVA watchdogs arrested, harassed

Matt Landon deserves a Medal of Honor -- he's a modern day Tennessee Volunteer and American hero.

After billion of gallons of toxic coal sludge broke through the TVA coal ash pond on Dec. 22, he and the United Mountain Defense nonprofit organization have worked full-time through the holidays and winter to deliver aid and water, assist the affected residents, collect data, and provide professional air and water monitoring.

National and international media have relied on Landon's dogged and insightful reporting behind the scenes. Landon has given tours to untold numbers of legal and legislative aides, including Robert C. Tanner the Majority Senior Investigator for Senate Committee On Environment & Public Works.

Considering the gross negligence of the TVA, and the whopping $825 million bill for clean up costs, you would think the TVA had enough sense to recognize Landon's and UMD's important role and accept their help.

Instead, the TVA police have not stopped harassing, detaining, and arresting Landon and other members of the United Mountain Defense.

On Sen. Bob Corker's 'support' for carbon legislation

A cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of its pollution permits and refunds the auction revenue back to taxpayers is functionally equivalent to a refunded carbon tax -- or at least as close to a functional equivalent as carbon policy is likely to get in this world.

So when Obama unveiled a budget that contained a cap-and-trade program with 100 percent auctions and 80 percent rebates, you'd think advocates of refunded carbon taxes would have been thrilled. They could have said, "this isn't exactly what I'd advocate, but it's a step in the right direction. I welcome Obama's willingness to compromise."

So what did Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who allegedly supports a refunded carbon tax, do?

He called the proposal "sleight of hand." He said:

I guess his claim on Tuesday night that no one earning under $250,000 would pay more in taxes did not apply to this massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.

This, remember, is from a guy who allegedly wants a carbon tax.

Moments later, Corker's office said:

Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.

Obama proposed an auctioned system that returns 80 percent of the revenue. Corker wants 100 percent of the revenue returned. Because he didn't get exactly what he wanted -- only 80 percent of what he wanted -- Corker is badmouthing the plan and working to destroy it.

Corker has talked his way inside the carbon policy tent and now he's trying to burn it down. He's got lots of company.